Facts of the case – The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghosh, pledged his property to the defendant, a money lender, when he was a minor. Counsel for the defendant was aware of the plaintiff`s age at the time. The claimant ultimately paid only Rs 8000 but refused to pay the remaining amount. The applicant`s mother at that time was his next girlfriend (legal guardian); Therefore, he brought a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that, because he was a minor at the time the contract was concluded, he was not obligated by him. The issue of confiscation against the minor has raised legal difficulties with the authorities. However, it has been established by the competent authority that there is no such confiscation against a minor. Estoppel means that if a person makes a statement that misleads another person, they cannot deny the same statement in the future when their obligation arises in relation to their statement. The doctrine of confiscation prevents a party from saying something that contradicts its previous statements. Thus, the minor is not deterred from presenting the defence of childhood.
The reason for this is that there can be no violation of the forfeiture of a legal provision. But in the Mohori Bibi case, the accused misrepresented his age in order to pawn his house, but the lender was already aware that the accused was a minor. As a result, the Privy Council did not consider the principle of forfeiture, since the applicant was not distorted or misled by the minor`s testimony. In view of the various decisions of the various high courts of India, it should be noted that the minor may invoke a minority as a defence, although at the time of the agreement he wrongly stated that he was not a minor. Shivprasad Swaminathan, Ragini Surana, Minors` Contracts: A Major Problem with the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Statute Law Review, Volume 42, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 101-115, doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmy034 The child could not be declared insolvent because he could not draw on the debt. If a fee is pending on the minor`s assets, the minor is not required to pay the fee. For a joint contract between an adult and a minor concluded by the guardian on behalf of a minor, the legal responsibility for the contract lies with the adult. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, integrity is a prerequisite for an agreement between each party.
Section 11 of the Contracts Act states: „Any person authorized to negotiate a contract who is of legal age under the law to which he is subject and who is of reasonable intelligence and who is not excluded by the law to which he is subject.“ Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 states that all agreements entered into with the „free consent“ of the parties who are „competent“ for contracts are enforceable as contracts. § 11 declares that minors are not capable of contracting. While sections 19, 19A and 20 of the Act explicitly state the consequences of deplorable „consent“, they do not determine the consequences of a contract with a minor. Nevertheless, a Decision of the Privy Council, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) read the law as if it had given a definitive answer to this question and held that the miners` contracts were null and void (and not void) from the outset, meaning that neither party could enforce them, nor attempt to assert their initial positions in accordance with the provisions providing for return in the case of cancellable (Article 64) or void (Article 65) contracts, Restore. Indian courts have since invoked Mohori Bibee in a bloodless abstraction, as if it were an undeniable axiom of Indian contract law. This section argues that the Privy Council`s interpretation of the law in Mohori Bibee is problematic and that its invention of the category of contracts that are void from the outset is not supported by the law. The convict, who was a junior and a teenager, borrowed a horse for a trip. He explicitly stated that he did not want a horse to jump. The convict then handed the horse over to his boyfriend, who used it to jump, resulting in a fall and injuries. The defendant was held liable in tort because the act that caused injuries to the horse was outside the meaning of the contract and had an implied connection with the contract.
A minor is a person under the age of eighteen, and the majority is a requirement for any contract. The Indian Majority Act of 1875[4] states that the age of majority in India is 18. A minor is a person living in India who has not yet reached the age of eighteen. Under Indian law, a minor`s agreement is void, which means that it has no legal validity and is void and invalid because no party can apply it. Even if he reaches the majority, he will not be able to sign the same agreement. According to article 68 of the Contracts Act: „If a person who is unable to conclude a contract or a person legally obliged to support the contract is provided by another person with the necessities appropriate to his life, the person who made the deliveries is entitled to a refund of the property of such an incompetent person.“ What is the position of the minor under the Indian Contract Act of 1872? Written by Prachi Mehta Student of MKES College of Law is not excluded from the contract by any law to which it is subject. [3] The consent of a minor provided for in the case of Mohiri Bibi is completely invalid. However, a deposit in favour of a minor is enforceable. According to section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932, „a minor under the Act to which he or she is subject may not be a partner in a partnership, but may be authorized for the time being to share the benefits of a partnership with the consent of all the partners.“ The problem of confiscation of the minor has led to legal problems between the authorities. But the competent authority decided that there was no such confiscation against a minor. Estoppel means that if a person makes a remark that misleads another person, they cannot refute the same statement in the future that their duty to make a statement occurs. Estoppel theory prohibits a group from saying anything that violates its previous claims.
Consequently, the minor is not prohibited from providing child protection. The form of the contract establishes a relationship, and the nature of the contract is that all parties must be of legal age. However, by way of derogation from the rules of article 30 of the Law on Partnerships, a minor may initially be entitled to a partnership with the appropriate consent of both parties. However, he will not be responsible for any of his behaviors. Lord Sumner`s refusal to acknowledge the allegation was that the money paid to the applicant (minor) had been used for his own use. There is no way to find the money and there is no way to get it back, as this will result in the implementation of an invalid contract. It can therefore be said that according to the law, an agreement with a child / minor is void. Contract law in India stipulates that only a man aged 18 and over is fit to contract.
The main reason why an agreement with a minor is void is that if the child makes a promise to do something and his promise is an important part of the agreement, the contract is considered null and void because the child does not have the right to make the promise of a legal obligation. Any contract with a minor cannot claim a specific function or the performance of an act by the minor, since any agreement with minors is considered null and void from the outset. Since any contract with a minor, i.e. a person under the age of 18, will not be able to sign the contract, any contract concluded with a minor will be invalid from the outset. However, a minor is not allowed to enter into a contract, nothing in the Contracts Act prevents him from binding the other party to the minor. Therefore, a promissory note that is reasonably executed for the benefit of a minor is not void and could be sued by him. A minor cannot become a partner in a partnership. But a minor may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership with the consent of all partners.
Thus, the article notes that the following parties are not able to conclude a contract: since the minor`s contract is void, he cannot confirm and validate it by reaching the age of majority. For example, a young person borrows money and makes a note that shows it. By acquiring the majority, it offers a brand new record instead of a disc that is used as a minor. The second note is useless without consideration. But the man who provides a small child with the essentials is strengthened by the nature of his relationship with the child, the restoration of the child`s property is made possible, not in relation to a contract, but by the bond of the common agreement. However, the child`s property is legally responsible for the needs and there is no personal responsibility for him. Not all agreements are contracts under section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act. [1] Only these contracts are agreements of parties who are legally able to enter into a contract. In addition, section 11(2) of the Indian Contracts Act defines the term „competent“, which consists of three elements: at the time of the transaction, the legal representative acting on behalf of the lender was informed that the party was minor. The minor brought an action against the lender, arguing that he was a minor at the time of the contract and that the contract was therefore void and incapable.
However, at the time of the appeal to the Privy Council, the complainant died and his child, Mohiri Bibi, appealed. Estoppel is a legal rule of evidence that prohibits a party from making claims that contradict what it has previously claimed. .